Hall-of-fame Voting?

Question

Don't you think that the people that vote for the hall of fame should be the living hall of famers? I was watching a show on TV and a guy said that many old players don't get voted in because a lot of the writers that vote are young and never saw the older players. Andre Dawson said that the young voters never saw him so they don't vote for him. Are there enough living hall of famers to vote for it? I think they should do that because the players know the history better than the writers. Do you agree?

Answer 1

the new york media , los angles media determine who is voted into the hall of fame . you have posted a great great question. great players from small media centers are ignored . andre dawson in monteral . not a hope in hades , kansas city in the 50s to 70s nope . old washington senators . never . the players from the era . should have the vote . you will recieve many negative responces . but you are definatly correct with your question . players in the hall deserve to be there . no question about thier greatness . many other deserving players have been overloooked , due to playing loosing teams , small media centers . the great baseball reporters are gone . the players should at least have the vote for the veterns catagory . there are no video , little written words . to many have been passed . there are at least 15 veterns who deserve the hall. this is not meant as dissrespect to the inductees , they earned thier place . but some who deserve to be in are not . great great quetions . i think you have started a firestorm . i think this will get me at least 5 thumbs down . still a great great overlooked , responce . well done . at least one person has respect for all great players . unlike the powers to be .

Answer 2

I think the Hall of Famers should vote along with the writers. But a Hall of Famer may vote for a good friend or old teamate

Answer 3

I think a certain percentage of the vote should probably be determined by a panel of living hall of famers.  The big problem is that the Baseball Writers Association, which numbers about 550 members, are not entirely in tune with the game.  The reason is that many voting members are retired and having seen a game in years.  That is a major problem to be sure.  There has to be a complete revamping of the system.  The Veterans Committee has been lacked, of late, in  their voting as well.

There are several deserving players who should have been elected years ago but are still waiting for the call to Cooperstown.  Andre Dawson is among those waiting.  There are many older players as well.  Yes, I agree that something has to be done to improve a system that doesn't work every well.

Answer 4

That's what the Veterans Committee is for!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Co...

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers...

Answer 5

The writers have done a very good job of gatekeeping the Hall's rolls. Not perfect, but far more good choices than either bad choices or glaring omissions. I have no problem with the BBWAA retaining the primary voting franchise exclusively.

The living HOFers were the primary population of the 2003-07 version of the Veterans Committee, and during that time elected no one. Now, it may very well have been the non-player voters who got in the way of Santo and others (Santo regularly topped the ballot returns), but surely SOME of the players didn't vote for anyone, or at least not anyone worthy. They do have a vested interest not to vote -- preventing dilution (however slight or totally misperceived) of the honor that the Hall represents. Anyway, we'll get a truer picture this winter, as the VC subcommittee that votes on post-1942 debut players now consists of nothing BUT living HOFers, a group which is almost totally players (there is one living executive, MacPhail, and four managers including Williams, three of which were players at one time (also Lasorda and Anderson)). If the players are ever going to see fit to open the Hall's doors to a peer, this year's VC ballot will be it, and Santo is expected to be the leading candidate.

Santo's VC ballots (2003-07)

2003 -- 56.8%, #3 on the return

2005 -- 65.0%, tied for #1 on the return.

2007 -- 69.5%, #1 on the return.

I don't have issue with the Hall chartering its living members with an election franchise -- but given that they now have exclusive control of the most interesting subcommittee, if they again elect no one, they'll be serving the same purpose as having no committee at all, and having no committee is a simpler situation and possibly a preferred one. Many consider that the VC, in whatever incarnation, has outlived its usefulness (and a different subcommittee having elected Kuhn, it becomes all the more a valid point). The December 2008 ballots may very well prove this point of view right -- or refute it decisively.

Elect Santo already, ya bums. Make your election speak in a clear and welcome voice.

...

Dawson, OTOH, is just being cranky. He's been on the BBWAA ballot seven years, earning these returns in order: 45.3%, 50%, 50%, 52.3%, 61%, 56.7%, 65.9%. That's a promising trend and it's going to get him the bronze plaque, probably in 2010. The writers may not be giving him the 75% supermajority just yet, but (a) they will and (b) it wasn't the writers who posted that nigh-embarassing .323 career on-base percentage. If/when elected, Dawson's OBP will be the lowest by a major league primary outfielder honoree (and by a lot, about -20 points below Brock and Yount). Not that his OBP should be the only consideration of his candidacy nor should his rather low stat prevent his election; but man, it sure ain't helping him any, and he's the only person who can take the credit for it.

If the "younger voters" are holding his OBP against him, well, tough beans; that's part of the statistical analysis revolution, and he might as well condemn Bill James for it.

Answer 6

Actually, i think the fact that the Veteran's Committe is made up of living Hall of Famers actually makes it MORE political. I think that explains why they induct so few of their contemporaries, because they somehow think that if they allow more players in, it will make their accomplishments seem less important.

And the argument that the writers are too young doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. The writers who vot in the hall have to be members of the BBWAA, and have to have been active baseball writ4ers for at least 10 years. Assuming that most of them have a college degree, that would make most of them at least 32 years old, more then old enough to have seen Dawson play. And if nothing else, the Veteran's Committee serves as sort of a "second chance" for those players who get overlooked by the writers.

And having heard a lot of MLB players being interviewed about baseball's past, I really doubt many of them know more about the "history" of the game then the sportswriters do. You may not remember back to 1997, when baseball was selebrating the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier. It was embarrassing to see today's players interviewed and basically say they really didn't know anything about it.

And no matter who votes, there will always be some people who are too little to vote for a truly deserving player because of some personal differences. Loko at how many people will tell you that barry Bonds doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, and rather then talk about any issues regarding the probable use of PHD's, they simply use as their reason that they think Bonds is a jerk. And the sportswriters as well as the players will use the same reasons as well.